Adaptive certificate distribution mechanism in vehicular networks using forward error correcting codes

ABSTRACT

A method for improving the reliability and performance of Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) networks where digital certificates are necessary for message authentication and some messages may be lost in transmission. The method uses Forward Error Correcting (FEC) codes to encode a digital certificate into multiple segments, and attaches one or more segment to each message transmitted. Nodes receiving the messages can reconstruct the certificate as long as they successfully receive a minimum number of the transmitted messages, where the minimum number is less than the total number of messages transmitted. This allows message authentication to continue uninterrupted, even in a network environment where some messages are lost in transmission. Two different types of FEC codes are described, and adaptive schemes are included to optimize message throughput based on such network conditions as node density.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

This invention relates generally to a method for distributing digitalcertificates in vehicle-to-vehicle networks and, more particularly, to amethod for distributing digital certificates in vehicle-to-vehiclenetworks which uses forward error correcting codes to encode acertificate into multiple segments and attaches the segments to multiplemessages.

2. Discussion of the Related Art

Wireless vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication is becoming increasinglypopular as a driver assistance mechanism. V2V communication can be usedin systems which provide drivers with important advisories and warningsabout the state of traffic in the surrounding environment. Security isan important part of V2V communication, since spurious advisories orwarnings shown to a driver based on information from compromised nodeswould lead to loss of confidence in the use of V2V systems. It is henceimportant that messages exchanged between nodes (vehicles) in V2Vnetworks be secured against malicious entities intent on manipulatingthe system or disrupting the service.

Security in a V2V network can be provided by using digital signaturesbased on public key cryptography (PKC). An important requirement ofPKC-based security protocols is the exchange of public keys through asecure and trusted channel. Digital certificates provide the meansnecessary for establishment of a secure channel to exchange the publickey between a transmitting node and receiving nodes. A digitalcertificate, among other parameters, typically contains a uniquecertificate identifier, along with the public key, which is needed formessage authentication. Since bandwidth in wireless V2V networks is at apremium, message size must be kept to a minimum. For this reason, acommon strategy used in V2V networks is not to transmit a digitalcertificate with every message. Instead, a certificate may be appendedonly to messages at a certain interval, such as every fifth message,where the first, sixth, and eleventh messages include a fullcertificate, while the second through fifth and seventh through tenthmessages include a certificate digest, and so forth. Then, when the nextmessage containing a full certificate is received, the receiving nodecan validate that the preceding messages with certificate digests werein fact authentic. Since a certificate digest is considerably smallerthan a certificate, this strategy accomplishes the objective of reducingmessage size.

However, V2V networks are characterized by rapidly changing topology,signal strengths are sometimes marginal, and node density can be high.Thus, some transmitted messages can be lost. That is, some messages arenot successfully received by nodes which should receive them. If a lostmessage happens to be one containing a full digital certificate, thenthe receiving node accumulates a backlog of messages which it cannotauthenticate. As a result, performance of real-time messaging systemswill suffer, and some critical information may be permanently lost.

There is a need for a certificate distribution mechanism which minimizesmessage size, while simultaneously minimizing the potential negativeimpact of lost messages.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In accordance with the teachings of the present invention, a method isdisclosed for improving the reliability and performance ofvehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) networks where digital certificates arenecessary for message authentication and some messages may be lost intransmission. The method uses Forward Error Correcting (FEC) codes toencode a digital certificate into multiple segments, and attaches one ormore segment to each message transmitted. Nodes receiving the messagescan reconstruct the certificate as long as they successfully receive aminimum number of the transmitted messages, where the minimum number isless than the total number of messages transmitted. This allows messageauthentication to continue uninterrupted, even in a network environmentwhere some messages are lost in transmission. Two different types of FECcodes are described, and adaptive schemes are included to optimizemessage throughput based on such network conditions as node density.

Additional features of the present invention will become apparent fromthe following description and appended claims, taken in conjunction withthe accompanying drawings.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a diagram of a wireless vehicle-to-vehicle communicationnetwork showing digital certificates and certificate digests beingexchanged between two vehicles;

FIG. 2 is a flow chart diagram of a process for distributing digitalcertificates using a variable inter-certificate refresh period;

FIG. 3 is a diagram of a schema showing how Erasure Codes are used toencode and decode data;

FIG. 4 is a diagram of a wireless vehicle-to-vehicle communicationnetwork showing how Erasure Codes can be used to transmit digitalcertificates between two vehicles;

FIG. 5 is a diagram of a schema showing how Fountain Codes are used toencode data; and

FIG. 6 is a flow chart diagram of a process for distributing digitalcertificates using forward error correcting codes to encode thecertificates for transmission.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS

The following discussion of the embodiments of the invention directed toa digital certificate distribution mechanism using forward errorcorrecting codes in vehicular networks is merely exemplary in nature,and is in no way intended to limit the invention or its applications oruses.

Wireless Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communication networks have becomeincreasingly common in automobiles. One of the most popular uses of V2Vcommunication is in vehicle systems, such as collision warning systems.For example, a vehicle can report its position, velocity, andacceleration or braking status, such that other vehicles in the vicinitycan receive this information via V2V communication and provide alerts orwarnings to the driver if appropriate. Communications security iscritical in these applications, since a message with inaccurateinformation, whether intentional or otherwise, could lead to anaccident.

Public key cryptography (PKC) is typically used for messageauthentication in V2V networks. In public key cryptography, each userhas a pair of cryptographic keys—a public key and a private key. Theprivate key is kept secret, while the public key may be widelydistributed. The keys are related mathematically, but the private keycannot be feasibly derived from the public key. In public keycryptography, a digital certificate is an electronic document which usesa digital signature to bind together a public key with an identity—whichin the case of a V2V network is an identity of a vehicle or individual,or any other attribute that is uniquely associated with the entity.Using digital signatures, a message signed with a sender's private keycan be verified by anyone who has access to the sender's public key,thereby proving that the sender had access to the private key, and thatthe message has not been tampered with. An important requirement ofPKC-based security protocols is the transmission of a public keybelonging to an entity to a receiver through a secure and authenticchannel that prevents another entity from claiming ownership of thepublic key being transmitted. Digital Certificates are employed as amechanism to enable a secure channel for transmission of public keysauthentically.

Thus, digital certificates are an important enabler of the securitynecessary in V2V networks. However, certificates create overhead in V2Vsystems, both in terms of communication bandwidth and storage. It isdesirable to minimize this overhead by not attaching a full digitalcertificate to every message transmitted. Current V2V standards forcertificate distributions require a certificate to be appended to thetransmitted messages periodically, based on an inter-certificate refreshperiod L. For example, if the inter-certificate refresh period L is setto five, then a certificate is appended to every 5^(th) transmittedmessage, while the intervening four messages in each sequence areappended with a certificate digest. Certificate digests are 256-bit hashfunctions of a certificate. A cryptographic hash function is adeterministic procedure that takes an arbitrary block of data andreturns a fixed-size bit string, the cryptographic hash value, such thatan accidental or intentional change to the data will change the hashvalue. In this case, the data to be encoded is the digital certificate,and the hash value is the certificate digest (CD). The IEEE 1609.2standard recommends using the lower 8 bytes of the 32-byte hash output,this being considered as a valid digest for the certificate. Thus, acertificate digest is only 8 bytes in size, while a full digitalcertificate is about 118 bytes in size. This approach, sending CD'sinstead of full certificates for the majority of messages, is designedto reduce bandwidth and storage overheads typically associated withtransmitting packets with certificates appended to the message.

FIG. 1 is a diagram of a network 30 of two vehicles communicating in aV2V environment per the current standard. In the network 30, vehicle 10is transmitting information, and vehicle 12 is receiving. Forillustration and clarity purposes, the communication in the network 30is described as being one-directional, that is, from the vehicle 10 tothe vehicle 12. In reality, each vehicle participating in avehicle-to-vehicle network would both transmit and receive information,using an onboard transceiver for transmitting and receiving messagepackets, and an onboard controller or processor for processing messagedata and using it in an application. V2V applications require frequentcommunication of vehicle kinematical information, on the order of 10messages per second. Therefore, there is a constant stream of messagesbeing exchanged by vehicles in a given network topology. In V2Vterminology, a communication packet consists of both a message payload,represented by M in FIG. 1, along with its appended certificate (C) orcertificate digest (CD). The message payload includes useful applicationdata, along with numerous data fields containing information about themessage, such as security type and transmission data rate, as specifiedby the IEEE 1609.2 standard.

In this scenario, the inter-certificate refresh period L is set to five.The vehicle 10 sends packet 14, which contains both a message payloadand a full digital certificate. If the vehicle 12 receives the packet14, the vehicle 12 can verify the authenticity of the packet 14 via thecertificate. The vehicle 12 can then use the application data in themessage payload, which in this case is kinematical data for the vehicle10, in its application software. Further, upon successful reception ofthe digital certificate and verification, the vehicle 12 stores thecertificate in its cache for a time interval as determined by therecommended privacy settings or certificate expiry time. All messagescorresponding to this digital certificate received within this timeinterval no longer need to wait for the reception of another digitalcertificate. Instead the certificate digests of these packets areverified through a simple operation that involves computing the hash ofthe stored digital certificate and comparison of the last 8 bytes of thecomputed hash with the received certificate digests. Upon expiry of thetime interval, the certificate is flushed out and the entire processrepeats.

If the packet 14 is not received by the vehicle 12, there areconsequences for not only the packet 14, but also for subsequentpackets, as will be seen. The vehicle 10 then proceeds to send packets16, 18, 20, and 22, each of which contains a message and a certificatedigest. The vehicle 12 may receive all of the packets 16-22. However, ifthe packet 14 was not successfully received and no digital certificateis available in cache, the vehicle 12 cannot verify the authenticity ofthe packets 16-22 until it receives another full digital certificate,which will enable it to verify the CD which was attached to the packets16-22. In the case where no valid certificate is available in cache, thevehicle 12 must store the packets 16-22 in a buffer for later use ifbuffer space is available. If insufficient buffer space is available,some or all of the packets 16-22 may be dropped, resulting in a loss ofuseful information.

The vehicle 10 then sends packet 24, which includes a data message and afull digital certificate. If the vehicle 12 receives the packet 24, andif the packets 16-22 are still stored in the buffer, the vehicle 12 canverify the authenticity of the stored packets 16-22, and can then usethe data from the messages in the packets 16-24 in its applicationsoftware. However, if the vehicle 12 fails to receive the packet 24, thevehicle 12 cannot authenticate the packets 16-22, and therefore cannotuse the data from the messages in the packets 16-22 in its applicationsoftware. In that case, the vehicle 12 can only keep the packets 16-22in storage, until it receives a full certificate which can be used tovalidate them. But the vehicle 10 will not send another full digitalcertificate for five more messages. If even one certificate-carryingpacket is lost, at a transmission frequency of 10 packets per second, itcan be seen that some data messages may be delayed from being used inthe application software by almost one full second. This is a long timefor a collision warning system. If the next certificate-carrying packetalso happens to be lost, the time delay of the data becomes even worse,some packets may have to be dropped from the receiver's buffer, and theapplication's performance will continue to deteriorate.

In real V2V communication networks, packet losses are a fact of life.There are many reasons that a transmitted packet may not be received bysome nodes in a network. One of the fundamental characteristics ofvehicular networks is the mobility of nodes relative to each other,leading to a high rate of changes in network topology. Hence, nodemobility contributes to nodes moving in and out of communication rangeof neighboring nodes, thus increasing the likelihood of packet loss intransmission. Packet collisions, where two or more nodes attempt to senda packet across the network at the same time, also contribute to theproblem of packet loss. In addition, buffer overflows in receiving nodescan also lead to packet loss. Given these realities of V2V networks,some messages and some digital certificates are bound to be lost,leading to the data delay or data loss condition detailed above. Toavoid this problem, two different adaptive methodologies for digitalcertificate distribution are proposed.

In a first embodiment, the inter-certificate refresh period L is variedto adapt to current V2V network conditions. Referring again to FIG. 1,the two goals to be balanced are minimizing security-relatedcommunications overhead, while maximizing V2V message throughput. It isdesirable from an overhead minimization standpoint to increase the valueof L; that is, to use relatively more certificate digests and fewercertificates. However, this strategy guarantees that more messages willhave to be buffered by receiving nodes before being used in theirapplication software, and it increases the potential negative impact ofa dropped certificate-carrying packet—possibly leading to the loss ofuseful information. On the other hand, reducing the value of L increasesthe amount of overhead due to security-related data on a per-messagebasis, and could increase the chance that any particular message will belost in a congested network.

Many factors can affect the performance of a V2V network at anyparticular time. These factors include the number of participating nodes(vehicles), the spatial and mobility patterns of the nodes, bandwidthsaturation, the tolerance to delays of the application software used inthe vehicles, characteristics of the physical channel, and others.Because these factors and their effects can vary so widely, it is notpossible to select a single value of the inter-certificate refreshperiod L which will provide the best results under all conditions.Therefore, an adaptive strategy is proposed, in which the value of L maybe varied, up or down, based on current network conditions. In thisapproach, a controller would be programmed to periodically monitor theV2V network factors described above, such as number of participatingnodes and bandwidth saturation. Based on the monitored conditions of thenetwork, and empirical data on network performance as a function of thevarious factors, the controller would select an optimum value of L touse for an interval of time. Monitoring of network conditions andselecting an optimum value of L would be repeated periodically, in orderto maintain network throughput at or near its peak value. It may also bedesirable to have the interval of time, during which the value of L isfixed, be a variable amount. That is, in some network conditions,monitoring and re-establishing a value of L may occur more frequentlythan in other network conditions. Actual network performance, as measureby the rate at which useful message data is being processed by receivingnodes, could also be measured and used to establish the optimum value ofthe inter-certificate refresh period L.

FIG. 2 is a flow chart diagram 100 of a process for distributing digitalcertificates using a variable inter-certificate refresh period L. At box102, wireless communications are established between two or morevehicles in a vehicle-to-vehicle network. For the purposes of thisdiscussion, the vehicles 10 and 12 of FIG. 1 will be referenced, wherethe vehicle 10 is transmitting messages and the vehicle 12 is receivingmessages. At box 104, the vehicle 10 employs a digital certificate,which was pre-installed in the onboard processor prior to start of V2Voperation. At box 106, the vehicle 10 creates a certificate digest as ahash function of the digital certificate. At box 108, the vehicle 10defines a value for the inter-certificate refresh period L. As describedabove, the value of L may be established based on measured networkconditions, such as node density and bandwidth saturation.Alternatively, the value of L may be established and continuouslyupdated based on actual network performance, which may be defined as therate at which useful message data is being processed into receivingnodes' applications. At box 110, the vehicle 10 transmits a messagepacket over the vehicle-to-vehicle network. Transmission continues at 10messages per second, or whatever frequency is dictated by theapplications being used. Each message packet contains useful messagedata and other data fields, along with either a digital certificate or acertificate digest, as prescribed by the inter-certificate refreshperiod.

At box 112, the vehicle 12 receives the transmitted message packet. Atdecision diamond 114, the vehicle 12 checks to see if the receivedpacket contains a full certificate or a certificate digest. If a fullcertificate was received, the vehicle 12 computes a digest of thecertificate at box 116. At box 118, the vehicle 12 checks a certificatedigest store for previously received certificate digests. At decisiondiamond 120, the vehicle 12 checks to see if a digest exists whichmatches the one computed at the box 116 for the just-receivedcertificate. If so, this means that a message has previously beenreceived from the same transmitting vehicle 10, and the public keyassociated with the matching stored certificate digest can be used toverify the received message at box 122. At box 124, the useful messagedata from the received message can be used in the application by thevehicle 12.

If no matching certificate digest is found at the decision diamond 120,then the digital certificate must be verified by the vehicle 12 at box126, using a certificate verification algorithm of the type known tothose skilled in the art. At decision diamond 128, the vehicle 12 checksto see if the certificate verification was successful at the box 126. Ifso, then the received message can be verified with the correspondingpublic key at box 130. At box 132, the vehicle 12 computes a digest ofthe received certificate and saves it in the certificate digest storefor future use. At box 134, the useful message data from the receivedmessage can be used in the application by the vehicle 12. Ifverification was not successful at the decision diamond 128, then thevehicle 12 will drop the received message at box 136.

From the decision diamond 114, if the received message contains acertificate digest, the vehicle 12 checks the certificate digest storeat box 138. If a matching certificate digest is found at decisiondiamond 140, the vehicle 12 verifies the message at box 142 and uses themessage data at box 144, as was described previously for the boxes 122and 124. If no matching certificate digest is found at the decisiondiamond 140, then the received message cannot currently be verified andused, so the vehicle 12 can only store the message at box 146, or dropthe message if sufficient buffer space is not available. The steps ofthe boxes 112 through 146 are used in typical V2V operations today, andare detailed here to show the importance of not experiencing a lengthydelay in receiving a full digital certificate.

In any pass through the process of the diagram 100, the vehicle 10 candefine a new value for the inter-certificate refresh period L at the box108, based on changes to the measured network conditions, or changes inthe actual network performance. The vehicle 10 need not communicate thevalue of L to other vehicles in the network. The vehicle 10 can simplyuse the value of L that is determined to provide the best networkperformance, and send digital certificates and CD's accordingly.

The adaptive strategy of varying the inter-certificate refresh period Lhas a number of advantages. First, the method employing a variable L canbe used in networks together with nodes which use the traditionalfixed-L methodology, with no changes of hardware or software requiredfrom any of the nodes. Nodes which use the traditional fixed-Lmethodology could continue to operate as normal, but they would see thebenefit of improved communications throughput in messages they receivefrom the node which uses the variable-L method in messages it transmits.Second, a node which uses the variable-L method does not need tocommunicate the value of L to the receiving nodes. The receiving nodescan receive and process packets as they would in a fixed-L environment,verifying the authenticity of preceding CD's each time a fullcertificate is received. Finally, the variable-L method creates noadditional overhead compared to the traditional fixed-L method, which isan important criterion in a V2V network.

In a second embodiment, Forward Error Correction techniques can be used,where a certificate is divided among several packets, and thecertificate can be reconstructed even if some packets are lost by thereceiver. Forward Error Correcting (FEC) codes can be used as a means torecover data in lossy environments. By over-sampling the input data, FECcodes create data larger than the input, such that the loss of a fewdata segments in transmission will not prevent the receiver fromreconstructing the original data completely. Applied to the problem ofcertificate transmission in V2V networks, FEC codes offer a mechanismfor receiving nodes to reliably recover certificates, thus reducing theinformation blockage to the application layer and reducing the need forre-transmission of data. Two different types of FEC codes—Erasure Codesand Fountain Codes—are proposed.

FIG. 3 is a diagram of a schema 60 showing how erasure codes are used toencode and decode data. Erasure codes are a form of FEC codes which canbe used to reconstruct original source data in spite of a loss of acertain number of data packets during transmission. Source data 40 iscomprised of a number of segments k. In the case of a digitalcertificate, the 118 bytes of certificate data can be divided into anysuitable number of segments k. In the schema 60, k is shown to be equalto 8, but the value of k could be larger or smaller than 8. An encodingmodule 42 encodes the k segments of the source data 40 into n segmentsof transmitted data 44, where n>k. During transmission, some datasegments 46 may be lost. Therefore, received data 48 may contain somenumber k′ of data segments, where k′<n. As long as the number k′ of datasegments in the received data 48 is greater than or equal to k, adecoding module 50 can decode the received data 48 into reconstructeddata 52 which is identical to the source data 40, consisting of ksegments. The k′ segments of the received data 48 can include any of then segments of the transmitted data 44. That is, there are norequirements that any particular segment must be recovered, nor that twoadjacent segments cannot be lost. It is only required that a number k′of unique segments be contained in the received data, where k′≧k.

The fundamental concept of erasure codes lies in the existence of anencoding function ƒ(X), which acts upon the k-dimensional input vector Xand produces an n dimensional output vector Z. The encoding function hasthe property that ƒ(X)+ƒ(Y)=ƒ(X+Y) and can be represented by a matrix A.Hence, encoding is simply a matrix-vector multiplication leading to thematrix Z. Erasure codes are known to those skilled in the art ofnumerical methods, and need not be detailed further.

FIG. 4 is a diagram of a network 80 of two vehicles in a V2Venvironment, showing how erasure codes can be applied to thetransmission of digital certificates. In the network 80, vehicle 62 istransmitting information, and vehicle 64 is receiving, no certificatedigests are used, and certificates are encoded into multiple packetsusing erasure codes. To illustrate the use of erasure codes in thisexample, the source data, which is the digital certificate, is dividedinto five segments. That is, k=5. The five source data segments areencoded into six transmitted data segments. That is, n=6. The vehicle 62transmits a first packet 66, containing a message payload M and a firsterasure code segment E1. The vehicle 64 receives and stores the firstpacket 66. The vehicle 62 proceeds to send packets 68, 70, and 72, eachof which is received and stored by the vehicle 64. At this point, thevehicle 64 has received four packets, and hence, four erasure codesegments, from the vehicle 62. The vehicle 64 cannot yet decode thecertificate, because it has not yet received enough data segments. Thevehicle 62 then sends data packet 74, containing a fifth erasure codesegment E5. However, the packet 74 is lost in transmission, and is notreceived by the vehicle 64. The vehicle 62 then sends packet 76,containing a sixth erasure code segment E6. The packet 76 is received bythe vehicle 64. This represents a fifth erasure code segment received bythe vehicle 64, which enables the vehicle 64 to decode the certificate,authenticate the messages 66-72 and 76, and use all of the message datain its application. The vehicle 62 repeats the transmission sequenceafter n=6 packets. It is noted that with the erasure code methodologydescribed herein, a single lost packet does not have the potential tocause an entire series of packets to be unusable by the receiver, as isthe case with the traditional methodology shown in FIG. 1 when acertificate-carrying packet is lost.

Another form of Forward Error Correcting codes is known as fountaincodes. Fountain codes are a class of FEC codes that are capable ofproducing an infinite set of output segments for a given set of inputsegments, such that the original input segments can be recovered orreconstructed from any subset of the encoded output segments of sizeequal to or only slightly greater than the number of input sourcesegments. The number of output segments can also be finite. Fountaincode theory is also known to those skilled in the art of numericalmethods, and efficient encoding and decoding algorithms exist for makingpractical use of fountain codes.

FIG. 5 is a diagram of a schema 90 showing how fountain codes are usedto encode data. As was the case with erasure codes, the source dataneeds to be divided into a number k of input segments 92. With fountaincodes, there is no defined number n of encoded data segments. Rather,the number k of input segments 92 are encoded into an infinite number ofoutput segments 94. When the encoded output segments 94 are transmittedin messages across a network, the receiving node can decode the originalinput segments 92 when a number k′ of segments is received, such thatk′=(1+ε)k. According to fountain code theory, the number k′ need only beslightly larger than k; that is, ε<<1. For example, if the source datais divided into five input segments 92 (k=5), decoding should bepossible when six output segments 94 are received.

Applying fountain codes to the problem of transmitting a digitalcertificate in a V2V network then becomes straightforward. The sourcedata is the digital certificate, and a value of k must be selected. Thecertificate is divided into k input segments 92, and fountain codes areused to generate an ongoing stream of output segments 94. Each of theoutput segments 94 is appended to a message payload in a communicationpacket which is transmitted over the V2V network. A receiving nodereceives and stores the received packets until a minimum of k′ encodedsegments are received. The receiving node then decodes the source data,and recovers the digital certificate to authenticate the messagesreceived. At that point, the data in the message payloads can beprocessed in the receiver's application, such as a collision warningsystem. It is noted that the fountain code methodology is very tolerantof lost packets. A receiving node can continue to buffer receivedpackets until a number k′ of encoded segments are received, even ifseveral packets have been lost in the interim. Again with fountaincodes, a single lost packet does not have the potential to cause anentire series of packets to be unusable by the receiver, as is the casewith the traditional methodology shown in FIG. 1 when acertificate-carrying packet is lost. Variations on the fountain codemethodology can also be employed by the transmitting node. For example,the transmitting node can re-start the fountain code sequence after acertain amount of time has passed or a certain number of packets havebeen sent, and the transmitting node would re-start the sequence anytime a new digital certificate needed to be used as dictated by thecertificate expiry time or privacy concerns.

FIG. 6 is a flow chart diagram 200 of a process for distributing digitalcertificates using forward error correcting codes to encode thecertificates for transmission. At box 202, wireless communications areestablished between two or more vehicles in a vehicle-to-vehiclenetwork. For the purposes of this discussion, the vehicles 62 and 64 ofFIG. 4 will be referenced, where the vehicle 62 is transmitting messagesand the vehicle 64 is receiving messages. At box 204, the vehicle 62employs a digital certificate, which has been pre-installed in itsonboard processor. At box 206, the vehicle 62 divides the digitalcertificate into a group of source data segments. The group of sourcedata segments has a size of k, as described previously. At box 208, thevehicle 62 encodes the group of source data segments into a larger groupof transmitted data segments. For erasure codes, the group oftransmitted data segments has a size of n; for fountain codes, the groupof transmitted data segments can be infinite in size. At box 210, thevehicle 62 transmits message packets over the V2V network. The messagepackets contain the encoded transmitted data segments and useful messagedata.

At box 212, the vehicle 64 receives the message packets, and stores thedata segments and message data in a buffer. At box 214, the vehicle 64decodes the received data segments into a group of reconstructed datasegments. This can only be done when a sufficient number of datasegments have been received, as explained previously. For erasure codes,the number of received data segments must be greater than or equal tothe number of source data segments. That is, k′>k. For fountain codes,the number of received data segments must be slightly greater than thenumber of source data segments. That is, k′=(1+ε)k, where ε<<1. Ineither case, erasure codes or fountain codes, the receiving vehicle 64can reconstruct the source data even if some message packets are lost intransmission. At box 216, the vehicle 64 uses the reconstructed datasegments to re-create the digital certificate sent by the vehicle 62. Atbox 218, the vehicle 64 uses the digital certificate to verify theauthenticity of the message packets it has received. And at box 220, thevehicle 64 processes the useful message data it has received in itsapplication.

Other strategies can be employed to improve the reliability andperformance of V2V network communications where digital certificates aredistributed using FEC codes. One strategy that can be used is toadaptively change the encoding parameters k and n in response to networkconditions, where the parameter k applies to both erasure codes andfountain codes, and the value of n applies only to erasure codes. Forexample, some network conditions may dictate that the values of k and nboth be made larger, while other network conditions may yield betterperformance when both k and n are smaller. Also, for a given value of k,a network which is experiencing very few lost packets may provide thebest results by setting n=k+1. But in a very lossy network environment,the value of n may need to be significantly higher than k. Althoughadaptively changing the values of n and k may be an effective strategyfor dealing with variable network conditions, it is noted thatcertificate segments created for certain values of n and k areincompatible with certificate segments created for different values of nand/or k.

Another strategy which can be used to optimize V2V network performanceis to append more than one FEC encoded segment to each transmittedpacket, under certain network conditions. That is, even where theencoding parameters k and n are chosen and held constant, it is possibleand permissible to append more than one encoded segment to each packet,in order to maximize the rate at which message data is received,authenticated, and processed into the receiving node's application.Thus, if k=5 and n=6, and two segments are attached to each packet, thereceiving node would have enough segments to decode the certificateafter receiving three packets. The strategy of appending more than oneencoded data segment to each message packet applies to both erasurecodes and fountain codes.

Given the wide variation in V2V network topologies—including number ofnodes in the network, vehicle to vehicle ranges, bandwidth saturation,etc.—it is impossible to select values for the encoding parameters n andk, and a number of segments per packet, which will produce the optimumresults under all network conditions. For example, in the erasure codemodel, setting the value of n much higher than k will result in eachencoded segment being larger, which increases network traffic. Butsetting the value of n too low may result in less tolerance of lostpackets. Likewise, increasing the ratio of segments per packet allowsthe receiving node to decode the certificate after receiving fewerpackets, but it also increases the likelihood of dropped packets due tothe increased packet size. These tradeoffs are known and understood, andnetwork performance could be empirically measured across a wide range ofnetwork conditions for different combinations of parameters. Such anempirical study would allow an adaptive strategy to be implemented whichperiodically updates the values of the encoding parameters and the ratioof segments per packet, using the combination which would yield maximumdata throughput under current network conditions.

The foregoing discussion discloses and describes merely exemplaryembodiments of the present invention. One skilled in the art willreadily recognize from such discussion and from the accompanyingdrawings and claims that various changes, modifications and variationscan be made therein without departing from the spirit and scope of theinvention as defined in the following claims.

1. A method for distributing digital certificates in avehicle-to-vehicle network, said method comprising: establishingwireless communications between two vehicles in the vehicle-to-vehiclenetwork, where a first vehicle is transmitting messages and a secondvehicle is receiving messages; employing a digital certificate by thefirst vehicle, where the digital certificate contains information whichcan be used to verify the authenticity of messages sent by the firstvehicle over the vehicle-to-vehicle network; dividing the digitalcertificate into a group of source data segments by the first vehicle;encoding the group of source data segments into a larger group oftransmitted data segments by the first vehicle, where the encoding usesforward error correcting codes; transmitting message packets over thevehicle-to-vehicle network by the first vehicle, where the messagepackets contain transmitted data segments and message data; receivingthe message packets by the second vehicle, separating the messagepackets into received data segments and message data, and storing thereceived data segments and the message data associated with the receiveddata segments; decoding the received data segments into a group ofreconstructed data segments by the second vehicle when a sufficientnumber of message packets are received; using the reconstructed datasegments to create a reconstructed digital certificate by the secondvehicle; using the reconstructed digital certificate by the secondvehicle to verify the authenticity of the message packets; and using themessage data by the second vehicle in an application.
 2. The method ofclaim 1 further comprising measuring performance of thevehicle-to-vehicle network as a function of network and configurationparameters, where the network and configuration parameters are allowedto vary throughout their permissible range.
 3. The method of claim 2wherein the network and configuration parameters include number ofvehicles in the network, spatial and mobility patterns of the vehiclesin the network, bandwidth saturation, number of source data segments,and number of transmitted data segments.
 4. The method of claim 2wherein encoding the group of source data segments into a larger groupof transmitted data segments by the first vehicle uses erasure codes. 5.The method of claim 4 wherein the group of source data segments and thegroup of transmitted data segments are adaptively sized to optimize theperformance of the vehicle-to-vehicle network.
 6. The method of claim 2wherein encoding the group of source data segments into a larger groupof transmitted data segments by the first vehicle uses fountain codes.7. The method of claim 6 wherein the group of source data segments isadaptively sized to optimize the performance of the vehicle-to-vehiclenetwork.
 8. The method of claim 2 wherein the message packets eachcontain one or more transmitted data segments.
 9. The method of claim 8wherein a number of transmitted data segments to include in each messagepacket is adaptively sized to optimize the performance of thevehicle-to-vehicle network.
 10. A method for distributing digitalcertificates in a vehicle-to-vehicle network, said method comprising:establishing wireless communications between two vehicles in thevehicle-to-vehicle network, where a first vehicle is transmittingmessages and a second vehicle is receiving messages; employing a digitalcertificate by the first vehicle, where the digital certificate containsinformation which can be used to verify the authenticity of messagessent by the first vehicle over the vehicle-to-vehicle network; dividingthe digital certificate into a group of source data segments by thefirst vehicle; encoding the group of source data segments into a largergroup of transmitted data segments by the first vehicle, where theencoding uses forward error correcting codes; transmitting messagepackets over the vehicle-to-vehicle network by the first vehicle, wherethe message packets contain transmitted data segments and message data;receiving the message packets by the second vehicle, separating themessage packets into received data segments and message data, andstoring the received data segments and the message data associated withthe received data segments; decoding the received data segments into agroup of reconstructed data segments by the second vehicle when asufficient number of message packets are received; using thereconstructed data segments to create a reconstructed digitalcertificate by the second vehicle; using the reconstructed digitalcertificate by the second vehicle to verify the authenticity of themessage packets; using the message data by the second vehicle in anapplication; measuring performance of the vehicle-to-vehicle network asa function of network and configuration parameters, where the networkand configuration parameters are allowed to vary throughout theirpermissible range; and adaptively controlling the configurationparameters to optimize the performance of the vehicle-to-vehiclenetwork.
 11. The method of claim 10 wherein the network andconfiguration parameters include number of vehicles in the network,spatial and mobility patterns of the vehicles in the network, bandwidthsaturation, number of source data segments, and number of transmitteddata segments.
 12. The method of claim 10 wherein encoding the group ofsource data segments into a larger group of transmitted data segments bythe first vehicle uses erasure codes.
 13. The method of claim 10 whereinencoding the group of source data segments into a larger group oftransmitted data segments by the first vehicle uses fountain codes. 14.The method of claim 10 wherein the message packets each contain one ormore transmitted data segments.
 15. A distribution system fordistributing digital certificates in a vehicle-to-vehicle network, saiddistribution system comprising: a first vehicle in a vehicle-to-vehiclenetwork; a first application system in the first vehicle, where thefirst application system contains information about the first vehicle tobe provided to other nearby vehicles in the form of message data; afirst communication system in the first vehicle, where the firstcommunication system includes an encoding module configured to useforward error correcting codes for encoding a digital certificate into anumber of transmitted data segments, and a transmitter for transmittingmessage packets containing the transmitted data segments and the messagedata; a second vehicle in the vehicle-to-vehicle network; a secondcommunication system in the second vehicle, where the secondcommunication system includes a receiver for receiving the messagepackets and separating the message packets into received data segmentsand the message data, and a decoding module configured to use forwarderror correcting codes for decoding the received data segments into areconstructed digital certificate; and a second application system inthe second vehicle, where the second application system processes themessage data after validating the reconstructed digital certificate. 16.The distribution system of claim 15 wherein the encoding module in thefirst communication system and the decoding module in the secondcommunication system use erasure codes.
 17. The distribution system ofclaim 15 wherein the encoding module in the first communication systemand the decoding module in the second communication system use fountaincodes.
 18. The distribution system of claim 15 wherein the encodingmodule in the first communication system and the decoding module in thesecond communication system adaptively configure parameters used in theforward error correcting codes in order to optimize performance of thevehicle-to-vehicle network.
 19. The distribution system of claim 15wherein the transmitter includes more than one transmitted data segmentin each message packet if necessary to optimize performance of thevehicle-to-vehicle network.
 20. The distribution system of claim 15wherein the first application system and the second application systemare collision avoidance systems.